Facebook’s Internet for All Is a Tough Sell in India

I am surprised by the negative reaction to the program in the comments section. Facebook approach is no different than just about every other market savvy company that offers something “free” with a hope of enticing potential customers to buy more of its service or product. Why is Facebook alone guilty of tracking your every move when almost all free websites and even paid ones track your every click, including people committed to “Do No Evil”? If people do not want to avail of the free product or service, they do not have to subscribe to it. For example, I am not on Facebook and refuse to do so even though I am left out of many things my family and friends post on it. One may doubt the effectiveness of the Freenet campaign or the reliability of its local partner’s network, but do not get worked up about a legitimate marketing program that is practiced by other companies too.

The saddest thing here is not about the marketing strategies of Facebook, but the realization that with access to internet in the slums, there is the finality that dwellers will have entered the twenty first century without ever having access to food, shelter, medicine, water and clean air; that door is shut permanently!

So *if* you are willing to throw away the classic definition of the internet as defined by Merriam-Webster which, by the way, is a web site that you cannot access on this "freenet", that defines the internet as "an electronic communications network that connects computer networks and organizational computer facilities around the world" and not just facebook, and *if* you subscribe to Reliance and *if* you agree with Reliance and Mr. Zuckerberg that spotty and unreliable and therefore unpredictable access to a stripped-down, text-only version of thirty-one over one-billionths of a percent of the internet is the "internet", then you can sign up for this Zuckerbergian "internet".

Just make sure that you do not download the freenet app, do not access facebook directly, do not accidentally click on a link to a site other than the 31 listed, do not accidentally look at a picture or video (and what I assume would include music as well), do not have any other of your smartphone's data-using apps---conveniently omitted from Reliance's terms and conditions---running at the same time, or you will be charged. Most important, however, and under absolutely no circumstances are you to ever, ever access the Facebook website directly, or you will be charged. That version of Facebook, along with the New York Times website, is reserved exclusively for privileged Americans.

Would the Arab spring have even been possible without sharing pictures or video?

I applaud Zuckerburg for his philanthropy - I believe his heart is in the right place and he honestly wants to help people and make a difference in the world (in both tech access and in education). However, I hope another billion people don't become addicted to the time sink known as Facebook. The world has enough intellectually devoid internet zombies already...

This really seems to be a case of a business trying to go into a market which it doesn't understand and where it doesn't understand the customers or even what they want. Facebook should fire Chris Daniels, he clearly isn't doing a very good job.

Facebook’s FREE package of Internet services

It is not FREE. Personal data is gold.
FB makes billions from mining, packaging and selling personal data along with taking people's photos and videos and using them for free for its own enrichment.

The dogs may bark but the caravan goes on.

And Indians need to be on Facebook for what exactly?

I am all for 'Internet to the poor', and any thing with a similar goal; But Free Basics/Internet.org is not acceptable to me. Why? because it violates Net Neutrality. There is a lot of literature about out there about Net Neutrality, so I won't go into any of it. But this is pretty much the sole reason for opposing its adoption down here. They are not offering people free 'internet', they're offering them a few networked services, branded as Internet. That in and of itself is not as harmful as what follows. Since nothing is going to stop other operators/ISPs from 'cutting up the Internet' into their own, specialized version of the 'Internet'. Ofcourse, it won't make a difference to those of us who can afford a proper Internet connection, but it does screw up things for startups and web services. Its ruin the kind of Internet that we are accustomed to. And that is why, we don't want Free Basics/Internet.org.

Those who think that Mr. Zuckerberg's venture in India is altruistic should pause a moment to think. He is a businessman, so why would he do it unless he had a business advantage. Then the next question to ask is will he have an unfair advantage. And the answer I think, over time is yes. The main criticism against Facebook's internet.org is that it is a walled garden meant to exclude rather than include. The problem here is that he is working against the concept of net neutrality and trying to prefer one set of service providers as opposed to the another which is going to result in increased costs for everyone by driving out competition. The ones to suffer most will be the indigenous providers. For example, India allows e-commerce equally for both Indian as well as foreign companies. So, there is Amazon competing fiercely with home grown services like Flipkart and Snapdeal. The latter do not have the deep pockets of Amazon. Once internet.org chooses Amazon to be in their walled garden, you know what might happen to Flipkart or Snapdeal who do not have the power of Amazon. This is why it is important to implement net neutrality. Because a walled garden and preferential treatment is akin to unfair competition resulting in price rise later. Also, as Facebook faces more competition everywhere, they will have locked up a customer base of more than a billion people. That is the ultimate motive. That is not an altruistic thought I would say.

I do not see any reason to attack and vilify Mr. Zuckerberg when no one else (the government or other private companies) can provide a better alternative? It is too early to tell if the poor in developing countries will fully embrace internet.org but access to the internet can only improve their lives just as mobile telephone connections did twenty years ago. Being connected to the rest of the world is no longer a privilege for developed countries and is rapidly becoming as necessary as the oxygen we breathe (okay: hyperbole) for everyone to survive.

Internet mobile phone will be big hit in India like mobile phone with its potential to be low cost. Such a device will be friendly to rural India. Perhaps that is what the Prime minister was discussing with Mr.Zuckerberg.
There is a great potential for connectivity in the developing world

If Mark really wanted to do this right, donate to schools and communities old computers or mobile phones that the "rich" world got rid of by the millions. The kids who benefit from this will have a better chance of being adequately educated and thus find a reasonably paid jop in the future. And consequently, they will afford to pay for real internet access. How about that?

Mobile internet start at about $0.50 a month in India. Calls are fractions of pennies in India.

Perhaps there is an Indian captain of industry that can bring the same low rates to the poor in the US?

Also of note is that stripped down products do poorly in India. They want what US consumers have. Prime example is the Tata Nano car that is failing in the market. Indians are willing to save up to get what they want. E.g. All my Indian friends have Samsung Galaxy's and are asking me for the latest IPhone.

Thinking what Indians need is no substitute to understanding what they want.

Way, way too soon to be critical. The idea is a fine one but connecting a billion people in a developing country is no overnight task. I appreciate the boldness of the vision, and ask for focus and time.

I don't understand a lot of the criticism. Internet.org is not (repeat NOT) aimed at people who already have internet access. The relevant question is NOT: is a wholly open internet better than the more restricted internet.org. The relevant question is much simpler: Are the restricted services of internet.org better than NO INTERNET AT ALL? There is a reality at play here and it's severity is matched only by its truth. Beggars cannot be choosers. The critics of this program essentially say that because THEY (being able to afford better access) would not use internet.org, an essentially destitute group of people should not use it either. That's not rational. Unless those same critics can honestly say that a people who cannot afford robust internet access are better off having no internet access at all, they should get out of the way. What have the regulators who want to restrict facebook in providing internet.org done to actually enable internet access to their own people? Facebook is a private entity giving something of value for free. And the essential complaint is that what they're giving away isn't valuable ENOUGH? "But Zuckerberg has so much money!" Does he have $1.8 trillion? Because that's the budget India's working with. If they are concerned enough to consider stifling a free service from a foreign non-government entity, you'd think they would be concerned enough to try their hand at it!

Why does Mr. Zuckerberg have to go to India when there is still a digital divide here in the US?

Zuckerberg has more money than God. If he truly believed “Internet access needs to be treated as an important enabler of human rights and human potential,” he has the funds and technological ability to do the job right.

Out of the goodness of his heart, he could partner with a cell phone carrier that offers reliable, decent coverage over most of the country. He could collect a billions old phones that still work well but have been abandoned for new models and distribute them in India. Heck, he could even give new phones to millions to Indians.

Zuckerberg could find a way to provide open, net neutral Internet to everyone is south Asia, including the poorest of the poor, and really change the lives of a billion human beings for the better.

However, like most of the uber-rich, who have more wealth than they and their families could spend in a century, Zuckerberg apparently suffers from the 1 percent addiction/affliction.

These people crave more and more money and as much power as they can grasp in a single lifetime. And appearing to be altruistic to burnish their image world-wide is why their names are on so many museums, cultural centers and the programs of cultural events.

Zuckerberg could solve all problems thwarting internet access mentioned in this article.

Instead he has partnered with a carrier so bad even the poor don't want it, tries to destroy the open Internet, and pulls shenanigans to make Facebook's "surveillance" ad trolling international.

What a shame.

Facebook has made a terrible internet infrastructure worse in the Philippines. Its partners offer free facebook uploads but have not increased their already extremely strained capacity. The internet visibly slows when there are events at which many people upload selfies from those events.

i always wonder about these so-called altruistic business ventures in the developing world - citizens there are treated no better than commodities in an effort to monetize every aspect of their lives. Instead, does anybody wonder about the health of their society, water, food, education, roads, basic infrastructure and if that is a means to a better life rather than simply posting pictures and thoughts on your "wall" and asking other to please "like" them?

Surveys showing that a high proportion of users of Internet.org in countries like Nigeria now believe that Facebook IS the whole internet put Indian concerns in perspective. To blur the line between his product and the whole internet on the part of new users is clearly a major objective of Zuckerberg. Under the guise of an altruistic commitment to 'human rights and human potential' he is seeking hegemony over the net.

There is no free lunch. Someone is going to have to pay for this.

Interesting juxtaposition between India's emerging technology infrastructure and it's inability to provide decent sanitation (toilets and running water) to a huge swath of its population. Seems a priority that's a tad misplaced.

Only in the hyperbolic world of Silicon Valley marketing would losing half your customers be trumpeted as "..working incredibly well."

Trusting an obscure Indian phone company for such a project is a joke showing how little they know of the practices of corruption and lack of consideration for any quality of service towards their customer.

Try as a tourist to buy a SIM card in India and you will be scammed by the shop owner who needs to register and pay for the Sim they just sold you to the administration and phone company. Most sellers do not do it and the Sim stops working 5 days later.
An example of India's every day practices.

The rest of the service offered is just corrupted by the bias to push Facebook service instead of the altruistic PR pushed by the company who wants to make the world "a better place".

I am totally against this dumb charade of providing free internet access in India. It's just another way for Facebook to ensure it gets the big pie of the next billion people on this planet as they join middle classes. There is a strong opposition to this in India and i am one among them, canvassing folks to not take this bait.

India cannot loose an opportunity of it's own homegrown Facebook propping up to this clearly devious scheme to stop that from ever happening.

If Facebook really wants to give free access, it should be all the Internet not cherry picking some Facebook manager chosen sites that give it more revenue.

It seems that we are speaking about free telephone service. Who else is offering that in India or elsewhere?

Of course, Reliance offers insufficient compensation to the retailer & a less than stellar connection. FB needs to consider this.

Please, "let the internet be free" folks tell us what they are doing in this regard. The people of India need to hear your response.

Text only access to FB = bad UI.

Zuckerberg and his ilk underestimate the intelligence and technology savvy of the average person in developing countries. This scam to get people on Facebook and increase their margins through minimal investment in local partners (and positioning it as somehow altruistic) will crash and burn.

Dear writer,

The number of internet users in India has reached 354 million. The latest figure indicates that India has more internet users than the population of the US ( Approx 321 Million).

Instead making products more lucrative, Mr Fackbook need to be think Product should be viable for rest people whom not able to afford.

Internet is a medium, not a media. and India Market is no more place to dump any worthless product.

"Noble goal of bringing Internet to the world" ahahahahaahaaa

Zucky is out to put 4 billion more people on Facebook!
Then he can sell sell sell their private info.
Give me a break, lol.

So Facebook is free, but clicking on images/videos will cost you money. And of course, this is in the fine print.

I don't think this shindig would last long. Facebook is killing its market by false promises.

To further the cause of human rights, Mr. Zuckerburg sat down for a PR event to promote possibly the worst violator of human rights ever elected to national office in the history of Indian democracy?

From the article: " “Internet access needs to be treated as an important enabler of human rights and human potential,” he told the United Nations last month."

Then, he added "It is even more important for my political career to be seen as that enabler of human rights, while my company, Facebook, also reaps the benefits of tracking millions of Indian consumers and their every move on my version of the Internet, the one where I am in charge. A billion users on my walled garden version of the Internet, Facebook. is not enough for me. I won't be satisfied until every person on Earth is tracked by my company's data miners, and their data is bundled and sold to the highest bidder."

'Facebook trying to win over India'. You've just got to love Zuckerberg UnLtd's crocodile tear-laden publicity show. They have ALREADY made EVERY post by everyone with an account searchable. Then again, as a number of plaintiffs (with and without Facebook accounts) have demonstrated in European Union lands (where, unlike this country, you actually have some legal privacy protections), you don't even have to have a Facebook account to have a dossier with them. All you have to do is go to a website that has a 'Like' button, even if you never touched that button. One can only wonder if the same thing applies to now-searchable posts.
Well, George Orwell was wrong in one big respect. Big Brother wasn't running things in 1984. He was just born then.

Countries like India should require cell phone operators to always include a free data plan. But instead of, let's say, offering 10 MB free per month, to offer 10K free per every five-minute interval. In that way, every cell user with a basic smart phone, can always use messaging, VOIP calls and some basic browsing.

At first, this may seem like a financial step-back for the cell phone operators, but the more cell customers use their free data-plan, a good number of them will upgrade to a for-fee data plan.

Also, with a single legal change, the whole country is given access to a modern infrastructure, and, hopefully, that will create more economic activity and help all involved.

Alternatively, the service can be supported by advertisers or the government or rich companies like Google or Facebook, but it has to be universal (for that country).

Facebook clearly chose a wrong partner. Reliance Mobile is not very popular in India.